Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Pages 182-188 are absolutely astounding. This answers a question that has been going through my mind for many years, namely "Did the musicians and Church authorities at the time make any attempt to reject the insurgence of popular music into the liturgy"? The answer is apparently YES, but not enough and perhaps too late as evidenced here. It seems as though there was still a sense of optimism that after a brief period of experimentation, a clearer understanding of the council's intent would prevail and this situation would resolve itself. How sad that they were not more forceful in stamping out the strummers and drummers.
See also the resolutions from Latin America. That's only the beginning.
In briefly looking at a few chapters in this, I thought that one of the keys to "what was happening" in the 1960s was this quote from "Disputed Questions":
Many non-believers of the present time have grasped the meaning of the word "prayer," listening to the Gregorian Salve Regina; they have found their way into the Church as choir members singing a Mass of Victoria, and their only contact with the Gospel may have been through the Passions of Bach. It is a paradox that the very ones who want to rid themselves of everything that these things mean by way of faith and love are the clergy.
This mirrors a frequent thread here on NLM, that chant is recognized outside the Church as sacred. It seems the folks who need convincing are the leaders within the Church.
For some reason this reminds me of Star Wars but not really, at all.
Reading some of the stuff on congregational singing sounds exactly like what we've observed for some years. And yet I know many many people who don't believe that participation is anything but singing one's favorite songs for the whole hour of Mass.
I may be entirely wrong as music is not my subject but I have been told that one of the reasons why bad music filled a vacuum after the promulgation of the Missal of Paul VI in 1970 was because authoritative musical settings were not provided from Rome soon enough to get Solemn and Sung Masses off to a good start. In the interval, improvised rubbish was produced en masse as a temporary measure and quickly became customary because there was nothing better. This opened the dyke to the repellent hymnody and Mass settings that civilized and ordinary people alike deplored and deplore.
What irritated me intensely at the time was the claim that much of this enterprise characterized a musical renaissance. What it led to, apart from banality, was the petit bourgeoisification of worship. It cut off the plebs sancta Dei from worship and replaced the chant with suburban mediocrity. Previously the chant was egalitarian in the best sense. Sorry if this sounds snobbish but bad music and the vernacular did more to discourage simple people from attending Mass than anything else. In Europe it helped to create a middle-class Church.
It was a vast left-wing conspiracy (to steal a phrase with apologies to Hillary Clinton). Actually I was around and the catechesis post-Council was ill-informed and extremely anti-tradition. I didn't realize that until I read Sacrosanctum Concilium myself, and saw that the Latin Mass was to be preserved and that Gregorian Chant and the organ were to have pride of place. You never would have known that based on the information we were being fed by the liturgical left. Tom
The comments above from Fr. Symondson echo my sentiments. (And I was there at the time as well, though but a girl.)"[T]he petit bourgeoisification of worship" happened in the United States as well.
It had previously been a problem just in the Protestant churches who had been sanitized and sweetened by Lowell Mason and the European-trained establishment who deposed earlier psalm singing traditions for bland lyrics and harmonies that appealed to the middle-class women who were filling the pews. Ask yourself, "who really goes for the music we're singing now in the average RC church?" It's the ladies in the pews, God bless 'em. (Of course, we've sent the teens off on their own.)
I'm not sure I've the intestinal fortitude to go back through the history another time. At the same time, I'll probably succumb to the temptation.
The problems all began with a certain Council that convened to do nothing but to repudiate authority.
In essence that is all that the Second Vatican Council did.
The whole message of the Council was the spineless mantra, "Lets be nice to everyone and then they will open up to the Will of God".
It did not work out this way.
It occured because of false compassion.
"As the Church goes, so goes the world".
"'Ask yourself, "who really goes for the music we're singing now in the average RC church?/ It's the ladies in the pews, God bless 'em."
Several times I have observed and interesting phenomenon, robust singing on all of the Random Four; but all three octaves (counting those who always sing an octave below what's written ;oP)on the sturdy, plain hymns, but only treble on the gather "power ballad."
There are styles of song a normal man won't sing except under duress.
(Sorry to have gone OT.)
Save the Liturgy, Save the World
As someone who was in Catholic Jr High during the years 1966-69, I can say with certainty that none of this 'trickled down' to us. Starting in Fall of '67 it was all Ray Repp, and Latin had disappeared in a puff of smoke before that. These proceedings might as well have been taking place on the moon.
Which leads me a to question that has been discussed here before - what made the clergy hate the 'traditional' Church so much? Our parish had priests and nuns from a Benedictine abbey and convent less than 5 miles away, and my 7th Grade teacher who brought in the new music was a nun, and our assistant pastor was a monk who said in one sermon, "Ladies, go home and put your doilies on the piano where they belong!"
I was given a copy of this book by Msgr. Schuler, rest his soul. I was informed that he had tons of extra copies on hand - I wonder what has become of them.
"These proceedings might as well have been taking place on the moon."
That was my experience as well. I was just starting Catholic school in Saginaw during the period covered by this book. Even at the age of 7 or 8, having not the least inkling of Catholic tradition, as our class droned out those Repp, Wise and Temple songs at school Masses and the people politely declined to sing them at Sunday Masses, I remember wondering why we must sing such awful music. It was as if there had never been anything better. Nobody talked about chant. Nobody heard it. Nobody cared. It was pretty much the same everywhere we lived.
When I went to college in Grand Rapids I worked for Park Congregational Church, where, ironically the riches of the Catholic musical tradition were opened up, while my Mass obligation was fulfilled on Saturdays amidst guitars and Glory & Praise. Serious Protestant musicians whom I encountered could not understand how the Catholic Church could turn its back on its magnificent tradition.
It is gratifying indeed to be witnessed the Church's emergence from that dark age.
Greg, I'm not sure the clergy hated the Church or tradition necessarily, but many of the clergy were immature, poorly formed, and once freed of traditional constraints rebelled against the Church authority and tradition just like young people in the 1960s were rebelling against their parents. It was the Zeitgeist of the times, a time of great unrest in the Church, the Universities, in Government, in Society in general. If Vatican II had occured in the 1950s, a period of relative conformity, or the late 1970s, when everyone was exhausted by the upheaval of the 1960s, the results probably would have been strikingly different. Tom
I'm going to get in trouble here, but my memory of the post-Counciliar "experimentation" was part of a broader era in the USA of social turmoil. I happened to have been overseas in the service during the years 1963-67, so I was not in tune (as it were) with what was going on at the Council. But, I now know that what was going on was secret. The post Counciliar catechesis was poor at best. Only the bishops were actually there and they didn't pay attention. My bishop did not understand Latin, nor did most. So, we got bishops telling priests who told the laity. But they didn't tell them much. Very few people actually read church documents.
Anyway, back to what is going to get me in trouble. I do not blame the "lower" clergy back then. They were only implementing what their bishops were telling them to do.
That said, the so-called revival of Gregorian chant is not due to Benedict XVI. It is due to the music itself. It speaks for itself, as it were. Remember the enormous popularity of the Monks of Santo Domingo de Silos? That was about 15 years ago.
Donald, I think you should give Pope Benedict credit when credit is due. Although many of us are Chant afficianados for the reasons you state, without Summorum Pontificum it would not have the new found legitimacy and place it enjoys today. Benedict has made it abundantly clear that our liturgical tradition is to be honored, not consigned to a museum, and is there to instruct and enrich the liturgical life of the Church today for its own sake and for the sake of the OF. With Summorum Pontificum the traditional liturgy and its traditional music once again has a legitimate place in the public life of the Church. That's in part, why we are seeing the wonderful rebirth of a Catholic liturgy on websites like The New Liturgical Movement. Tom
It wasn't simply a matter of cultural chaos and ignorant bishops, there was a sort of coup d'etat by Benedictine Archabbot Weakland, Fr. Gelineau and others to undermine the Vatican approved organization which was working on an organic musical transition after the Council (Appendix II).
Tolstoy says history is not made by individuals, but larger inexorable currents. Not true, individual heroes and villains played their roles, and we live with the consequences of their actions.
Thank God for the heroes who did what they could. It was not in vain.
I think there is another factor as well that contributed to the sudden changes and the acceptance of lesser quality music and the universal use of vernacular: Plain Old Fashioned Laziness! Released from the "need" to learn Latin, seinarians, and vis a vis Priests no longer bothered, and within a few short years, there was a total breakdown in it's use. Without Latin, there cannot be chant, and so the "vernacular" music (pop music) filled in the void. This is, of course, a simplification,but the fact remins that it is this same "laziness" that gets in the way of re-introducing high quality music, chant and latin into the liturgy: It is bound to be a lot of work for the Pastor, the clergy and the musicians, and it is a project that only those really dedicated are willing to put the energy into. It will involve organized catechesis, it will involve "getting everyone on the same page" as far as the musc preparations are concerned (no more "doing your own thing") and it will involve fielding numerous and often critical phone calls and e-mails by the Pastor. Everyone has to be willing to take on this extra work, and the question asked is "why bother if we don't HAVE TO". Until we HAVE TO, many are just going to say "no thanks".
After a conversation with an Augustinian priest at Villanova, I understood that there was indeed a very stale atmosphere in the Church before the Council. We tend to see things from our side of the pew, but this priest talks ecstatically about the "fresh air" the entered the seminary after Vatican II. Any institution will ossify over time, and while it is a shame that things worked out the way they did, SOMETHING needed to happen in those days. Perhaps the past 40 years was a necessary cleansing so that we might look freshly at the tradition in our own time. Just a thought.
Michael O'Connor, although I'm not disputing the Augustinian Father's personal perceptions at the time, I was around then too and for me it was very exciting to learn Latin, chant, etc. I never experienced the typical low Mass on Sunday. Our parish always had the Missa Cantata and the congregation sang it quite well. I believe if Vatican II had been post-poned for another 10 years many other parishes would have began to experience the fruits of the original liturgical movement begun during the time of St. Pius X. Unfortunately that did not occur. Tom
Michael O'Connor
Much of that fresh air was the false hope that somehow traditional Catholic teaching could be reconciled with modern Western culture. When the windows were opened, instead of fresh air came the smoke of Satan, as Pope Paul VI lamented. That generation is very reluctant to admit that things went wrong in a big way. They nearly denied us our spiritual inheritance.
I have just returned from a few days in Dublin and there was some talk in the Jesuit community I stayed in about the way Vatican II was implemented. All agreed that it had been crude, especially liturgically. Two factors emerged. 1) Few, if any, religious and diocesan priests, still less bishops, were prepared for change. 2) The principal of blind obedience was paramount and priests and people still obeyed directions from Rome unequivocally; dissidence was rare. Orders from Rome were despatched through the dioceses and priests were expected to change overnight with no preparation, explanation for change, or consultation. Few outside religious orders (and within them fewer still) had much idea of the liturgical movement. Much of that came later, but the initial application was invariably disastrous and the effect quickly irreversible. Mass attendance declined. The same happened all over the world. This was perhaps the last instance of applying centrist absolutism in a pre-Vatican II form.
The situation today is different. Fewer take much notice of what comes from Rome. Local bishops are selective in what they apply. Among the orthodox and conservative a democratic spirit has emerged which expects protests to be heard if directions are not to their liking, while insisting that Roman directions which others do not like must be observed, ie Summorum Pontificum. But, to chose another direction, Vatican permission for female servers is resisted and resented by traditionalists, but welcomed by the rank and file.
A case in point in the UK is the Bishops of England and Wales's recent direction to move the holy days of obligation of the Epiphany, the Ascension, and Corpus Christi to Sundays. Traditionalists protest and rebel, the rest conform. Thus has a topsy-turvy, contradictory, protestant (small 'p') mentality emerged which at one time would have been unthinkable and subject to censure. We no longer belong to a passive Church.
I am convinced that it would be impossible for an overnight change, for better or worse, to be applied. Perhaps that casts light on the Holy Father's statement made shortly before Summorum Pontificum that the laity have had too much change in the last forty years and further change must be gradual. But, in brief, the present situation is entirely in line with, and the result of, changes in the world initiated by the late-1960s.
Michael B
Evelyn Waugh said that when the Vatican opened the windows to let in fresh air, it only succeeded in admitting malaria from the Campagna.
Father Symondson,
Sounds like vintage Waugh. The malarial fever returns too frequently.
You are right, it will be a slow process of healing from the illness.
Father Symondson has pointed out a very important point: Holy Obedience was used as a club to permit a lot of nutty changes following the Council with little or no thought.
Unfortunately, Holy Obedience is no longer respected, so that legitimate changes are shrugged off. Vatican II, as implemented was an unmitigated disaster, unless one believes that going from 78% of American Catholics attending that nasty old Latin Mass every Sunday pre-Vatican II to around 23% of American Catholics attending Mass on Sunday today with the "new and improved vernacular Novus Ordo" is something to be proud of. Congratulations! Tom
TJM,
That's why my Polish pride in the Polish Pope took a heavy dose of humility every time Pope John Paul II waxed poetic about the fruits of Vatican II and the "restoration" of the liturgy.
The phrase that really makes me crazy is "New Pentecost" as a description of the "fruits" of Vatican II.
I'm perfectly happy with the first and only Pentecost, it was more than sufficient for us.
One wonders why it is that the Russian Orthodox church has managed to with stand the onslaught of the past forty years and changed nothing? They live in the modern world. I wondered this as I was standing waiting for the liturgy to begin last Saturday, the people were lining up for confession, each bowing deeply to the one behind and crossing themselves before presenting themselves to the priest. All these ancient practices being carried out by people who live in the same world I do. Let us not forget that these rituals too are Roman,since they are the rites of New Rome or Byzantium. Still, the Russians have not found any of their rituals a hindrance to modern living. I think the Catholic problems with liturgy have a sociological basis and have nothing to do with faith and spirituality at all.
Anonymous,
I don't know much about the Russian Orthodox Church, but I would be surprised if they have escaped unscathed from modernity.
Modernity itself is a Western phenomenon, it is the story of Western man's estrangement from the Faith that made the West. A "sociological" examination of the crisis would show that the problems with the Catholic liturgy can be traced to the continued estrangement of the West from God.
There is no independent sphere of existence that stands apart from dependence on God.
Ask your Russian friends about the Russian experiment based on the idea of strict separation of life from the reality of God begun in 1917.
Anonymous,
For a better understanding of the West, I would recommend anything by Christopher Dawson. As Jeeves would say, after reading Dawson, all will be clear, sir.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
